McMurtry text in “Custer” lackluster

Updated 4:26 pm, Friday, November 2, 2012

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

“Custer” is a handsome, large-format book carried by illustrations, which are bountiful and include samples of some classic Western artists, including Frederick Remington. But Larry McMurtry’s text is overly repetitive, inconsistent in facts and so lacking in lucidity and logical order that it ultimately has no point.

What does it say about a book on a subject like the 1876 demise of George Armstrong Custer during the battle of Little Big Horn, when the text encourages readers to turn to other books on the topic?

It's only one indication of the weakness in the text written by Texas author Larry McMurtry. “Custer” is a handsome, large-format book carried by illustrations, which are bountiful and include samples of some classic Western artists, including Frederick Remington.

Of the 179 pages, the text accounts for about 80 pages. The length would be sufficient, except that it is repetitive, inconsistent in facts and so lacking in lucidity and logical order that it ultimately has no point.

The reader will be told repeatedly that Custer was an annoying self-promoter hated by his fellow Army officers. Custer mistreated his soldiers and, on the day of his death, pushed aside common military sense and ignored his scouts' warnings as he led more than 260 of his soldiers to death. None of these are new observations.

“Custer” is a natural topic to follow previous McMurtry nonfiction books on Crazy Horse, William “Buffalo Bill” Cody, Sacagawea and the 2005 book titled “Oh What a Slaughter,” which describes a series of U.S. settler and military attacks mainly on helpless, defenseless groups of Indians. The title comes from a description of the Little Big Horn post-battle butchery, but that battle was not explored in the book.

In many of those books, McMurtry's essay, narrative and analytical skills already were slipping. In my review of “Oh What a Slaughter,” I noted the text was rambling and disorganized.

The messiness reaches new heights in “Custer.” Early in the text, McMurtry writes “So what?” that one Army corpse had 105 arrows in him. Late in the text, the author suddenly cares: “Puzzlingly, there was a corpse with 105 arrows in it. Why?”

Did the Civil War, in which Custer fought, result in 620,000 deaths or 750,000? McMurtry gives both numbers. McMurtry refers to several U.S. Army officers active in the fight against Indians after the Civil War by their last names only. McMurtry several times confusingly refers to “Armstrong,” meaning Custer.

More Information

Custer

By Larry McMurtry

Simon & Schuster, $35

McMurtry repeatedly refers to an 1868 treaty with the Indians. “In 1868 the army, aware of its own weakness — there were those burned forts — made a treaty giving the Black Hills to the Sioux in perpetuity, which meant forever.” I think most people know what “perpetuity” means.

The text's only worthy passage is an observation that the role of Indian scouts, who helped conquer Indian tribes that resisted the relentless white settlers, has been understudied. McMurtry also nicely observes how winning the Little Big Horn battle actually doomed the Indian tribes involved because it increased U.S. Army deployment in the area.

Why would Simon & Schuster publish substandard texts like it does in “Custer”? The publisher obviously wants to put out any book with the name McMurtry on it. But McMurtry is not the same writer he was in “Lonesome Dove,” “Terms of Endearment” or “The Last Picture Show.” McMurtry often has predicted and acknowledged that.

No one can blame McMurtry for continuing his lifelong habit of writing pages every day. What is wrong, though, with some editing?